Obama makes history

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
You want a source for the idea that you don't need marriage to have sex or sex to have marriage?!?!?

Sure.
You ask me for sources for damn near everything I post.
Things that are common knowledge and all over the TV,newspapers and internet.

So go ahead and give me a source for how you can have a "marriage" with never having sex with your spouse.

Originally posted by FMF
What I've read about this suggests that, for Obama, it is a civil rights issue, a question of equality in the face of the law and state, about seeking an end to discrimination. Your comments about it being "all about sex" just seem puerile and sniggering, whodey.

What about discrimination for singles? Why is it you have to get married for government perks? What about for polygamists? Don't tell me you are only focused on the rights of the gays FMF. For the love of God, don't tell me you are playing favorites here.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, government has not business in the marriage business.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Yep. It's pretty clever really. He undoes his long standing politically motivated official position (lie) to catch Romney out in his long standing politically motivated official position (lie) just in time to keep us all talking about gay sex (you go whodey) instead of the weak economy and ever diminishing participation in the American workforce.

Well what else is Obama and Romney going to discuss? Are they going to tell us how they will save the economy or pull our troops home overseas or end illegal immigration? LOL.

Originally posted by whodey
For the love of God, don't tell me you are playing favorites here.

I welcome the dismantling of discrimination and prejudice, especially of the institutional kind, and even if it happens slowly or incrementally.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Sure.
You ask me for sources for damn near everything I post.
Things that are common knowledge and all over the TV,newspapers and internet.

So go ahead and give me a source for how you can have a "marriage" with never having sex with your spouse.

I only ask you for sources for things that aren't common knowledge - at least not common enough for me to know and that I am skeptical about. I'm sorry if you are disappointed that I don't consider you to be a reliable source.


These are the laws for marriage in my state:
http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/illinois/index.shtml

Nowhere does it say anything about there being a requirement to have sex. I don't know what state you are in, so your state might require regular sexual activity but I'd have to look into the local laws there.

I know from personal experience that you don't need to be married in order to have sex, but I can link to some information about the so-called birds and the bees that will show that marriage isn't required if you wish.

Originally posted by whodey
Personally, I'm just tickled that I know President Obama's view on gay sex.

Personally, I'm just tickled whodey would even care, or pretend to care.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I only ask you for sources for things that aren't common knowledge - at least not common enough for me to know and that I am skeptical about. I'm sorry if you are disappointed that I don't consider you to be a reliable source.


These are the laws for marriage in my state:
http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/illinois/index.shtml

No ...[text shortened]... the so-called birds and the bees that will show that marriage isn't required if you wish.

Just because you can be married and not have sex, or have sex and not be married, doesn't change the fact that traditionally the "institution" of marriage exists (existed?) at least in part to allow two people to publicly express their desire to live in a monogamous, sexual relationship.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
In all seriousness, I'm a bit puzzled by this move. Does it make political sense? What's support for gay marriage like among independents? Or is Obama trying to increase turnout among young, urban people?

Others will disagree, but I think Obama's views had evolved organically and authentically, but his timing was generally pretty political. In particular, I think his timing was in response to the constitutional ban enacted in North Carolina.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Just because you can be married and not have sex, or have sex and not be married, doesn't change the fact that traditionally the "institution" of marriage exists (existed?) at least in part to allow two people to publicly express their desire to live in a monogamous, sexual relationship.

Of course. I'm not saying that generally people who are married don't have sex or it's irrelevant. Sex is generally a part of an intimate relationship - with or without marriage.

The institution of marriage has historically been an oppressive relationship in some cases where it gives the husband a lot of power over the wife, but these "traditions" change.

Marriage is about the expression and formalizing the relationship - not sex itself. Sex is an expression of the feelings between two people - not a necessary part of a marriage.

My main problem with whodey specifically was that he was essentially equating marriage and sex so that he can suggest that Obama is "into" gay sex - when Obama said nothing about sex at all.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn

My main problem with whodey specifically was that he was essentially equating marriage and sex so that he can suggest that Obama is "into" gay sex - when Obama said nothing about sex at all.

I understand, and I don't blame you for calling him out.

The institution of marriage has historically been an oppressive relationship in some cases where it gives the husband a lot of power over the wife, but these "traditions" change. Marriage is about the expression and formalizing the relationship - not sex itself. Sex is an expression of the feelings between two people - not a necessary part of a marriage.

I'll be up front with you--I'm on the fence here. For better or for worse, generally (not always but generally), marriage has historically existed as an institution, or paradigm, through which one man and one woman expressed a desire to live together in a monogamous, sexual relationship and raise children.

Now, as you say, institutions can, do, and often should evolve and progress. And frankly, if I had to come down on the issue at this very moment, I would probably support the gay-marriage movement. But I have recently come to wonder--will society move to a point where marriage no longer has any real meaning? It's fine to ascribe personal intent, or meaning, to a relationship between two (or more people) perhaps living together, perhaps of different genders, and perhaps having sex, and perhaps raising children. But an expression that loose and watered-down no longer seems to bear any symbolic, wide-ranging significance for society the way that the institution of "marriage" now does.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Of course. I'm not saying that generally people who are married don't have sex or it's irrelevant. Sex is generally a part of an intimate relationship - with or without marriage.

The institution of marriage has historically been an oppressive relationship in some cases where it gives the husband a lot of power over the wife, but these "traditions" cha ...[text shortened]... t he can suggest that Obama is "into" gay sex - when Obama said nothing about sex at all.

The institution of marriage in times past traditionally gave women power within a society in which they had no power otherwise. So in reality, it helped give women power at one time, not the other way round.

Although marriage is not just about sex, to exclude it is absurd. It is understood that when two people get married, that sex is part of the equation even though I'm sure there have been rare examples otherwise. Any other conclusion is disingenuous.

Your main problem with me is that I have hit the nail on the head. Although the left insists that government should get out of the bedroom, what they really want is for them to endorse what goes on inside the bedroom. So if you are straight and gay and monogomous, two thumbs up. You get governemnt perks if you marry. However, everyone else can get bent. 😕

Originally posted by whodey
[...] what they really want is for them to endorse what goes on inside the bedroom.

No, I think what liberals really want is for society to accept gays and lesbians as individuals of dignity, value, and self-worth.

Unfortunately, many religious conservatives seem incapable of extending that kind of recognition to them--debate on gay marriage aside.

Originally posted by wittywonka

I'll be up front with you--I'm on the fence here. For better or for worse, generally (not always but generally), marriage has historically existed as an institution, or paradigm, through which one man and one woman expressed a desire to live together in a monogamous, sexual relationship and raise children.

Now, as you say, institutions can, do, and oft ...[text shortened]... wide-ranging significance for society the way that the institution of "marriage" now does.[/b]

But in today's society many married people never have children. So why to they get government perks? If children are what you are concerned about, then give the parents, if you can find them, perks.

Personally, I think that if you take the government perks away from marriage by taking governemnt out of marriage altogether, then all you will be left with are those who marry on religious grounds. I think this would go along way in terms of ending the divorce revolving door in society which by itself has helped destroy society in general.

Originally posted by wittywonka
No, I think what liberals really want is for society to accept gays and lesbians as individuals of dignity, value, and self-worth.

Unfortunately, many religious conservatives seem incapable of extending that kind of recognition to them--debate on gay marriage aside.

You are correct. Gays want people to accept them. In other words, they want people accepting what they wish to do with their genitals. Again, its all about endorsing sexual unions, and has nothing to do with accepting them for who they are otherwise.

Originally posted by whodey
You are correct. Gays want people to accept them. In other words, they want people accepting what they wish to do with their genitals. Again, its all about endorsing sexual unions, and has nothing to do with accepting them for who they are otherwise.

I disagree. I do not think that gay people simply "want people accepting what they wish to do with their genitals." The desire to be treated with dignity encompasses a great deal more than that. The desire not to be beaten, abused, discriminated against, and mocked by other people in society encompasses a great deal more than that.